What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293159 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5293159?

Cleaning: $482.77 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; 2 X Holes In Hardboard In Shed: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293159?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293159?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12616026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293159 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5293159?

Cleaning: $482.77 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; 2 X Holes In Hardboard In Shed: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293159?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293159?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12616026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Larsen Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293159 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

20 Larsen Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293159 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293159 — net $1,169.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$482.77	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$260.00	Cleaning
Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed	$400.00	Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,169.77
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,169.77

Claims and awards for application 5293159 — net $1,169.77 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $482.77
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,169.77

Bond

Landlord $2,880.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Te Aniwa Reedy to pay [The landlord/s] $1,169.77 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,169.77 Te Aniwa Reedy: $1,710.23
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation because of a breach of the duty to repair. Both want the bond. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy? • Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Carpet cleaning
There is a claim for carpet cleaning. The landlord said there were visible stains and dirt on the carpet at the end of the tenancy, and provided photos taken at the final inspection. The tenant said she was given notice and did not have much time to clean up and move. She used a rug doctor and spot cleaned and thought the landlord should have given her a chance to go back and rectify any stains.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s photos. I note there is no requirement in the RTA that landlords and tenants conduct the final inspection together, nor any requirement to offer the opportunity to rectify. The amount claimed is proved and allowed. Cleaning
There is a claim for cleaning in the amount of $306.65. The landlord provided photos. The tenant said she left the house in a reasonable condition. I can see from the photos that the house needed additional cleaning in some places. I have not allowed for the cleaning of the light fitting because dealing with light fittings is a maintenance issue, and therefore a landlord responsibility. I allow $260 for the additional cleaning which seems reasonable to me. Pest control
There is a claim for pest control done seven weeks after the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there were fleas in the house and people working on site were bitten. The tenant said they had never had fleas in the house while they lived there. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s submission, which means this claim is not proved. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for repairing damage. The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Laundry floor
There is a claim for just over $1,500 to put new vinyl on the laundry floor. The landlord said the floor in the outside laundry deteriorated severely during the tenancy. She submitted this was most likely because the door was left open, rather than from fair wear and tear. The tenant said she did not routinely leave the door open. In addition, there was no venting for the dryer and water pooled under the laundry.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. There are no photos showing the laundry floor at the start of the tenancy, which means I do not have all the information I need to make a decision about reasonable wear and tear. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Shed door
There is a claim for the cost of a new handle for the shed door. The landlord said this was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant replied that the handle was replaced after a break in with a handle that was not robust. She said she is not sure why the handle was missing at the end of the tenancy.
I have considered the photos and the submissions. I am not persuaded the damage was more that fair wear and tear, so this claim is dismissed. Shed repairs, repairs to walls in the house and laundry, and painting over the repairs
This claim is for around $4,300. The landlord said there were scuffs, marks and dents and decals on the walls, and drawing pin holes throughout the house and the laundry. There was also damage to the shed walls. In reply the tenant said they may have caused the damage to the shed walls and attempted a poor patch job.
I have been provided with photos taken at the end of the tenancy and some photos from during the tenancy. I note the tenancy lasted for four years. I also note the shed and the laundry were old and worn.
I find the damage to the shed walls was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant should pay $400 to repair the holes. This is an amount that seems reasonable to me.
I find the other marks, dents and scuffs to be a mix of fair wear and tear, and careless damage. I find I have to take depreciation and betterment into account because of the length of the tenancy. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off. It seems most likely to me that making the tenant pay for wall repairs and painting would result in her paying for an improvement, which is not allowed. This claim is dismissed. Curtains
There is a claim for the cost of replacing one set of curtains that were too stained to be kept. The tenant said all the curtains were very old.
I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear, however, it seems most likely to me that an order the tenant pay to replace the curtains would mean her paying for an improvement. This claim is dismissed. .

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

The tenant filed an application for breach of the healthy homes standards (HHS) and for compensation because she and her family were without a toilet for about a week. As discussed at the hearing there were no breaches of the HHS so this part of the claim is dismissed.
Section 45 RTA requires landlords to repair. Repairs must be carried out within a reasonable timeframe. The tenant said she was without a functioning toilet for about a week, meaning she and her family had to drive to public toilets. She wants compensation for the inconvenience, stress, and the additional petrol costs. In reply the landlord provided work orders and a copy of the plumbing invoice. She said the plumber told her the tenant had a working toilet when he left at the end do the first day. If she had known the toilet stopped flushing she would have had an urgent plumber attend on the weekend.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. She does not have any supporting evidence, such as text messages, to show she notified the landlord over the weekend. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted within a reasonable time frame. I am not persuaded there was a breach of the duty to repair, which means I cannot allow the claim for compensation. The tenant’s application is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money at the end of the tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293159 — net $1,169.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$482.77	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$260.00	Cleaning
Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed	$400.00	Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,169.77
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,169.77

Claims and awards for application 5293159 — net $1,169.77 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $482.77
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 2 x holes in hardboard in shed

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,169.77

Bond

Landlord $2,880.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Te Aniwa Reedy to pay [The landlord/s] $1,169.77 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,169.77 Te Aniwa Reedy: $1,710.23
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation because of a breach of the duty to repair. Both want the bond. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy? • Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Carpet cleaning
There is a claim for carpet cleaning. The landlord said there were visible stains and dirt on the carpet at the end of the tenancy, and provided photos taken at the final inspection. The tenant said she was given notice and did not have much time to clean up and move. She used a rug doctor and spot cleaned and thought the landlord should have given her a chance to go back and rectify any stains.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s photos. I note there is no requirement in the RTA that landlords and tenants conduct the final inspection together, nor any requirement to offer the opportunity to rectify. The amount claimed is proved and allowed. Cleaning
There is a claim for cleaning in the amount of $306.65. The landlord provided photos. The tenant said she left the house in a reasonable condition. I can see from the photos that the house needed additional cleaning in some places. I have not allowed for the cleaning of the light fitting because dealing with light fittings is a maintenance issue, and therefore a landlord responsibility. I allow $260 for the additional cleaning which seems reasonable to me. Pest control
There is a claim for pest control done seven weeks after the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there were fleas in the house and people working on site were bitten. The tenant said they had never had fleas in the house while they lived there. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s submission, which means this claim is not proved. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for repairing damage. The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Laundry floor
There is a claim for just over $1,500 to put new vinyl on the laundry floor. The landlord said the floor in the outside laundry deteriorated severely during the tenancy. She submitted this was most likely because the door was left open, rather than from fair wear and tear. The tenant said she did not routinely leave the door open. In addition, there was no venting for the dryer and water pooled under the laundry.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. There are no photos showing the laundry floor at the start of the tenancy, which means I do not have all the information I need to make a decision about reasonable wear and tear. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Shed door
There is a claim for the cost of a new handle for the shed door. The landlord said this was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant replied that the handle was replaced after a break in with a handle that was not robust. She said she is not sure why the handle was missing at the end of the tenancy.
I have considered the photos and the submissions. I am not persuaded the damage was more that fair wear and tear, so this claim is dismissed. Shed repairs, repairs to walls in the house and laundry, and painting over the repairs
This claim is for around $4,300. The landlord said there were scuffs, marks and dents and decals on the walls, and drawing pin holes throughout the house and the laundry. There was also damage to the shed walls. In reply the tenant said they may have caused the damage to the shed walls and attempted a poor patch job.
I have been provided with photos taken at the end of the tenancy and some photos from during the tenancy. I note the tenancy lasted for four years. I also note the shed and the laundry were old and worn.
I find the damage to the shed walls was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant should pay $400 to repair the holes. This is an amount that seems reasonable to me.
I find the other marks, dents and scuffs to be a mix of fair wear and tear, and careless damage. I find I have to take depreciation and betterment into account because of the length of the tenancy. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off. It seems most likely to me that making the tenant pay for wall repairs and painting would result in her paying for an improvement, which is not allowed. This claim is dismissed. Curtains
There is a claim for the cost of replacing one set of curtains that were too stained to be kept. The tenant said all the curtains were very old.
I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear, however, it seems most likely to me that an order the tenant pay to replace the curtains would mean her paying for an improvement. This claim is dismissed. .

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

The tenant filed an application for breach of the healthy homes standards (HHS) and for compensation because she and her family were without a toilet for about a week. As discussed at the hearing there were no breaches of the HHS so this part of the claim is dismissed.
Section 45 RTA requires landlords to repair. Repairs must be carried out within a reasonable timeframe. The tenant said she was without a functioning toilet for about a week, meaning she and her family had to drive to public toilets. She wants compensation for the inconvenience, stress, and the additional petrol costs. In reply the landlord provided work orders and a copy of the plumbing invoice. She said the plumber told her the tenant had a working toilet when he left at the end do the first day. If she had known the toilet stopped flushing she would have had an urgent plumber attend on the weekend.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. She does not have any supporting evidence, such as text messages, to show she notified the landlord over the weekend. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted within a reasonable time frame. I am not persuaded there was a breach of the duty to repair, which means I cannot allow the claim for compensation. The tenant’s application is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money at the end of the tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293159 — Cleanliness at 20 Larsen Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293159 — Cleanliness at 20 Larsen Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions